Premium
Central motor conduction time: Reproducibility and discomfort of different methods
Author(s) -
Samii Ali,
Luciano Carlos A.,
Dambrosia James M.,
Hallett Mark
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
muscle and nerve
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.025
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1097-4598
pISSN - 0148-639X
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-4598(199811)21:11<1445::aid-mus12>3.0.co;2-#
Subject(s) - transcranial magnetic stimulation , stimulation , latency (audio) , reproducibility , medicine , peripheral , electromyography , anesthesia , audiology , physical medicine and rehabilitation , chemistry , electrical engineering , chromatography , engineering
Central motor conduction time, a useful measure for studying central motor pathways, is calculated by determining the difference between the latency of motor‐evoked potentials and peripheral conduction time. The intraindividual trial‐to‐trial variability of central motor conduction time and the discomfort associated with three methods of measuring peripheral motor conduction time (F‐wave latency, cervical magnetic stimulation, and cervical needle stimulation) were studied in 5 healthy subjects with the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation to elicit motor‐evoked potentials. Central motor conduction time was calculated by using measurements, made on 3 separate days, from the same three muscles on each hand. A visual analog pain scale was used to determine the level of discomfort for each method. Intraindividual trial‐to‐trial variability of central motor conduction time was similar for all methods, with coefficients of variation of 13% for the F‐wave latency, 15% for cervical magnetic stimulation, and 11% for cervical needle stimulation. The last method was significantly more painful than the other two methods; there was no significant difference in discomfort between the F‐wave method and cervical magnetic stimulation. To assess peripheral motor conduction time, when determining central motor conduction time, either the F‐wave method or cervical magnetic stimulation is preferable to cervical needle stimulation. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Muscle Nerve 21: 1445–1450, 1998